Peak Oil News and Message Boards

He [Trump} is destroying socialism right in front of your eyes.

Spare me the BS. Trump ain't gonna make a dent in this chart. On a forward basis, Social Security, Medicare and interest on the debt guarantee it.

We will see won't we. The first step is to acknowledge the problem.

Cog wrote:We will see won't we. The first step is to acknowledge the problem.

The problem? All the money pumped into those "socialist" programs gets netted by capitalist corporations in no time at all. Do you really think big food wants SNAP to be cut? Do you think slum lords want housing assistance programs cut? Do you think the massive healthcare racketeers and big pharma want healthcare programs cut? Do you think lenders, builders and the real estate people want HARP, etc cut?

Which of those industries are you invested in, Coggo? I'm betting the people who hold stocks in those sectors don't have the balls to admit they are as parasitic as the primary beneficiaries of those "socialist" programs.

Fess up you parasite.

Pops wrote:When I consider that a younger generation may not be able to see themselves ever owning a home at these prices and wages, or being all that impressed with the democratic process that doesn't enable them to have some kind of ownership, it makes me wonder about the viability of the system.

Is CA the entire United States? Is CA "the system? Is CA the economic model we should follow? (For me, the answers would be a resounding NO).

Look, my eldest niece got married a couple/few years ago. They wanted to move to SF, as he was from California, and this was their "ideal" environment. (She's way left of the rest of the family, which is fine with me, but not so much her father. Talking politics was literally banned during holiday family get-togethers by her father.)

And yet, they were willing to use some common sense and WAIT to move there, since taking a realistic look at housing prices, they realized it was pretty unrealistic to try to live there AND build up meaningful savings over time (an ethic I hope I helped instill into her).

So they're living in a nice little house in Georgetown, KY, a small red town in a very red state, but with:

a). Costs near the opposite end of the spectrum from SF, especially for housing.
b). Plenty of decent even good jobs and opportunities for folks with their education and skill level within 30 miles or so.
c). A very nice, safe, pleasant, even pretty (IMO) neighborhood, with decent walkable schools, shopping, etc.

And her husband works on the weekends as a waiter in a local restaurant to bring in extra cash (which I told her to mention to him that I was VERY proud of him for doing, as I figure a bit of encouragement never hurts).

A while after they had made that choice, I pointed out that though this situation is understandably disappointing for them in the short term, it's certainly not the end of the world.

A). Near by Lexington is a relatively liberal area (voting strongly democrat for most local offices, etc), just like Louisville. The typical urban / rural split for many red states re politics.
B). With their savings, as they move up the career ladder, hopefully if they still want to live on the left coast, even SF, they'll be in a financial position to reasonably do that at some point.
C). And at least in the mean time, they're not doing crazy-stressful stuff to make ends meet like my nephew who was commuting nearly 2 hours a day one way while living in L.A. to save on housing costs -- AND raising their baby while both working full time.

...

If housing prices were like CA everywhere, you'd have a point. They're not. They're quite cheap in many places, including some nice cities.

Here are some recent examples:

https://realestate.usnews.com/real-esta ... -in-the-us

Are you going to maintain that the younger generation would have "no hope" of owning a home in places like these?

It's really funny to me how the far left constantly lauds CA as some kind of paradise, and then turns around and rails at the economic reality the left wing policies have generally helped foster there, and THEN have the nerve to act like it's some kind of magical failure in the economic process that has caused things to be expensive.

And this is an example of how the problems are NOT all the banks' fault. Do you imagine that there aren't banks outside CA in the US, or that those other banks act completely differently than in CA?

I'm NOT saying banks are wonderful. I ***HATE*** the banking lobby and the way the politicians kowtow to it. But that's far different than placing banks above government policy overall and above supply and demand, generally, in the list of things that influence the cost of living in various locales.

California has expensive housing for the same reason as NYC or resorts like Nantucket Island. There are excellant paying jobs, prospects for advancement in a dynamic growing environment, and quality of life to be had there.

Supply and demand. California has been relatively expensive for four decades. My three homes in various places and what I paid for them were: Illinois $40K, Virginia $78K, California $124K. Then the wife inherited a modest Nantucket home that appraised for $1.15M. That home represented the accumulated wealth of her Father who worked for over four decades.

It has never been easy. I signed three 30-year mortgages because that is how much time and effort is required. Note also that I paid mortgages in the 9% to 11% interest range for all, and money is much cheaper now.

No one can afford San Fran. or anywhere in the Bay or along the coast. It's nice but gets 69 on the Realtor affordability index.
SoCa anywhere is similar tho I can't figure out why, LOL.

Lexington KY rates 142, Sacramento CA is at 134 and most of the valley towns are probably similar thought they aren't nearly as pretty as KY.

Affordability

Pops wrote:No one can afford San Fran. or anywhere in the Bay or along the coast. It's nice but gets 69 on the Realtor affordability index.
SoCa anywhere is similar tho I can't figure out why, LOL.

Lexington KY rates 142, Sacramento CA is at 134 and most of the valley towns are probably similar thought they aren't nearly as pretty as KY.

Affordability

You mean 242 for Lexington, KY. (I've lived here all my life and I'm frugal, so I'm well aware that real estate is VERY reasonable here -- as long as one stays the hell away from the exclusive areas.)

Ok, so looking at the data, I see that low scores are a bad thing, especially below 100ish.

So the good news in CA is that the averages are highly skewed by the very expensive cities.
So telecommuting or a moderate to long commute could offer some relief -- no wonder big city CA traffic is nightmarish. You literally couldn't pay me enough to commute 4 hours per workday in that, but then again, I HATE stress and value my free time.

It's really too bad that telecommuting for knowledge based work isn't more widespread.

It would be better for traffic, pollution, energy use, less wear and tear on infrastructure, and balancing real estate prices (just to name several off the top of my head).

This is an example of where government could help, via some form of tax credit(s). So it could be voluntary instead of coercive.

It would seem to me that pretty much everybody wins but the oil companies. So NATURALLY, this isn't seriously pursued. Sometimes I think US politicians AND the people who elect them are seriously demented. (Not just selfish and short sighted, but crazy.)

One example: congestion pricing is starting to become "a thing" in some of the most crowded cities. The only thing it does is drain peoples' wallets into the tax coffers -- so naturally, let's pursue THAT for major road congestion instead of more telecommuting!

Outcast_Searcher wrote:You mean 242 for Lexington, KY.

Yes, sorry. I started out to say I was near Springfield MO for a longish while (which is also 240-something) as compared to CA valley/foothills — which are in the Sacramento affordability range.

We are back out in the West primarily because we can be nearer to kids/grandkids. Being a freelancer I do telecommute, more ore less, so can be anywhere. There is nowhere west of the plains where housing is nearly as cheap as the central section of the US. I like little towns regardless of the rednecks and can see moving back with some cash but not sure that's gonna happen, she indulged me once, lol

If you are a left wing radical please to be staying in your left wing paradise and not transplant your voting record into redneck paradise. We don't care about how good you had it in New York or California. Stay there.

Pops wrote:

Outcast_Searcher wrote:You mean 242 for Lexington, KY.

Yes, sorry. I started out to say I was near Springfield MO for a longish while (which is also 240-something) as compared to CA valley/foothills — which are in the Sacramento affordability range.

We are back out in the West primarily because we can be nearer to kids/grandkids. Being a freelancer I do telecommute, more ore less, so can be anywhere. There is nowhere west of the plains where housing is nearly as cheap as the central section of the US. I like little towns regardless of the rednecks and can see moving back with some cash but not sure that's gonna happen, she indulged me once, lol

Not a problem. Thanks for the clarification. Just wanting to be on the same page. Nice to know that the CA valley/foothills is roughly similar to the Sacramento area in affordability, just as a reference point.

Ah, rednecks. Well, it takes all kinds. Many of them are actually nice and entertaining. Like all people, it's the intolerant, the drunks, and the violent that you have to watch out for. (I've run into plenty of them in polite, educamated society too).

OTOH, in my experience, in little towns around here you meet a LOT of very nice, polite, helpful, people. The main problem there is the frightening amount of such people whose sole input for "reality" is Fox News and church -- and they really believe all that stuff. And they frequently state those views. And looking around in such towns, you see a relatively HUGE number of small churches. It's kind of like living in a time warp, I suppose.

If I lived in a place like that I'd just have to keep my mouth shut, or I'd upset too many neighbors.

Coming from the country, I used to hate everything about it. Well, everything except the country. I've always been in love with the land. It's the people who develop ridiculous affectations, and then demand you be like them, that bother me. To me, there is a certain civilized standard that's more stand off'ish than those ways that insist upon a certain way of behaving or a set list of likes and dislikes. Those are for foreign countries, where the expectation may be more one of a tribal nature wrapped up in the definition of their country. Though, no country should rise to a widely accepted status among nations if it is based upon such a scheme. Look at the trouble with the places in the world where it is what people are trying to call reasonable, like Israel. The country does ok, but is always threatened at its core by a tribal approach to participation. Same goes for several states in Africa, where tribes influence voting and decades long rulers are not uncommon. Some of the real decisions for power take place outside of the public's view.

Cog wrote:We will see won't we. The first step is to acknowledge the problem.

But how is making the debt much worse over time re tax policy acknowledging the problem?

At the end of the day, services like SS and Medicare come from taxes, even if they're called "contributions".

Affordability is a slippery concept. In Silly Valley, a decent 2-bed, 1-bath, 1000 sq ft apartment with amenities is $3000/month. But the Santa Clara Valley, in fact the entire SF Bay Area, has been built out until all of the usable and seismic-safe lands are gone. Believe me you would not want to buy into any new neighborhoods out here, because the builders have been crossing palms to extend the concept of "buildable land", and high rise buildings are appearing. These new places exist on river bottom lands that shake like gelatin in a quake, or hillsides that slip after torrebtial rains. Same problem as Manhattan Island or any of the ten major cities where they are building up not out. A comparable apartment anywhere on the island of Manhattan averages $5000/month, or $9500/month if you can even see Central Park... (These figures are the result of a 5-minute online search this AM.) Bottom line: your Silly Valley mortgage money is safest buying into a neighborhood that is 30+ years old.

You can in fact live outside the Silly Valley and commute by train. I lived in the outskirts, less than one mile from the S border of Silly Valley, and used the train for several years. Once the trains had WiFi and power receptacles, my employer got 2+ extra hours of work from me while I commuted. Then I walked the 2 miles to my home and had a drink when I arrived.

For the record, I could have bought a much better retirement and a medical insurance plan than SS and Medicare, had I known what they would both be deteriorating into.

KaiserJeep wrote:For the record, I could have bought a much better retirement and a medical insurance plan than SS and Medicare, had I known what they would both be deteriorating into.

Through an employer or through a private insurance company? Because given how dishonest so many companies have become re honoring commitments, I think I might be more worried about trusting them than the government these days (which for me is saying a lot).

Predicting what will happen to government programs is a true exercise in randomness.

When IBM converted their venerated pension to 401-K's about 20 years ago, I remember attending a "financial seminar" where some 3rd party financial outfit talked to us about trade-offs, for those who had a choice which way to go.

The IBM pension no longer had any inflation adjustment at that time. I remember pointing out that it was all based on what assumptions you made. With low inflation, the traditional retirement plan looked really good. But with moderate to high inflation it looked much worse.

"So how the hell do you guess what future government policy, inflation, etc. will be like?", I asked? The answer was basically resounding silence, which said it all.

...

IMO, with SS slated to run out of money to pay full banefits (vs. about 75% of benefits from projected ongoing revenue) in about 17 years (and that number moves around a bit yearly, based on economic changes), whatever changes are made IF they really address the problem are going to be wildly unpopular. Especially since TPTB keep putting off doing anything about the problem, which makes the problem escalate in size over time.

It would currently take nearly a 3% raise in the SS payroll tax for employers and employees to fix it for 75 years (projected), according to an article I happened to see earlier today. I have trouble believing they'll put all that on the current employees, due to all the blowback they'd get.

But it's not like 90+% of people in the US, including the self employed have a legal choice to opt out of Social Security and Medicare.

Even though we are relatively financiallybsecure secure SS represents reoughly third of our retirement income. I wonder what it is for the average American? I’m betting it’s North of 50%.

Outcast_Searcher wrote:

Cog wrote:We will see won't we. The first step is to acknowledge the problem.

But how is making the debt much worse over time re tax policy acknowledging the problem?

At the end of the day, services like SS and Medicare come from taxes, even if they're called "contributions".

Not to worry, in six years you will get the tax increase you desire when the next progressive is elected. If you belive you are under taxed you are at liberty to write a check to the us treasury. Liberals rarely take advantage of this option but sure want to force the rest of us to do so.

Aren't you the one in another thread advocating a universal basic income? Deficits didn't seem to matter much to you when the obama was prez.8

For the record, I could have bought a much better retirement and a medical insurance plan than SS and Medicare, had I known what they would both be deteriorating into.

Pure bluster. Prove it.

https://www.epi.org/blog/social-securit ... hese-days/

Some of ya'all are absolutely hooked on free stuff from the government. As if there was such a thing as free stuff. We are not under taxed, we are over governed.

Cog wrote:Some of ya'all are absolutely hooked on free stuff from the government. As if there was such a thing as free stuff. We are not under taxed, we are over governed.

Personally, I agree. I would prefer :

Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies,---
It is high time we grow up and take responsibility for our actions and the world we have in unison created and will create